Enamel surface roughness after orthodontic adhesive removal: an in vitro study comparing four clearance methods

Year 2024, Volume: 58 Issue: 3, 145 - 151, 20.09.2024

Denisa Raticová , Magdalena Koťová , Aleš Bezrouk , Leo Sala , Petra Křížová , Aleš Leger , Wanda Urbanová

https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.20241436650

Abstract

Purpose: Adhesive remnants removal is the last key step influencing orthodontic treatment outcomes. Four different clearance methods (CM) of orthodontic adhesive were evaluated to determine, which achieved the smoothest enamel surface in the shortest time.

Materials and Methods: 75 intact premolars extracted for orthodontic purposes were included, sixty had an orthodontic bracket bonded and subsequently removed, and fifteen served as the control group. Four CMs were used to clear the tooth surface of 15 premolars each: carbide bur (CB), carbide bur with titanium nitride surface treatment + fine carbide bur (CBCB), glass fiber-reinforced composite instrument (GFCB), zirconia bur + glass fiber-reinforced composite bur (ZBCB). The processing time was recorded. In ten premolars from each group, the enamel surface was evaluated by atomic force microscopy estimating mean roughness (Ra), roughness profile value (Rq), and roughness depth (Rt). Enamel Damage Index (EDI) was assessed with a scanning electron microscope on 5 remaining premolars.

Results: Significant differences were observed in all evaluated parameters - Ra (p<0.0001), Rq (p<0.0001), and Rt (p<0.0001). GFCB exhibited the smoothest surface in all parameters. The lowest EDI exhibited teeth treated by GFCB, however, the differences were not significant. Working with GFCB took the longest time (mean 116s), and the shortest with CBCB (mean 49s).

Conclusion: Using CB is the fastest clearance method, but the enamel surface roughness was highest. Clearing with a set of instruments CBCB proved to be a fast method with satisfying remaining enamel roughness.

Keywords

enamel roughness, clearance method, orthodontics, adhesive, tooth surface

Ortodontik yapıştırıcı çıkarıldıktan sonra mine yüzey pürüzlülüğü. Dört temizleme yöntemini karşılaştıran bir in vitro çalışma

Abstract

Amaç: Yapıştırıcı kalıntılarının çıkarılması, ortodontik tedavi sonuçlarını etkileyen son önemli adımdır. En kısa sürede en pürüzsüz mine yüzeyini hangi yöntemin elde ettiğini belirlemek amacıyla dört farklı ortodontik yapıştırıcı temizleme yöntemi (CM) değerlendirildi.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Ortodontik amaçlarla çekilen 75 sağlam küçük azı dişi çalışmaya dahil edildi, bunların altmışına ortodontik braket yapıştırıldı ve daha sonra çıkarıldı, on beşi kontrol grubu olarak kullanıldı. Her bir CM, 15 küçük azı dişinin yüzeyini temizlemek için kullanıldı: karbür frez (CB), titanyum nitrür yüzey işlemi + ince karbür frez (CBCB), cam elyaf takviyeli kompozit alet (GFCB), zirkonya frez + cam elyaf takviyeli kompozit frez (ZBCB). İşlem süresi kaydedildi. Her gruptan on küçük azı dişinde, atomik kuvvet mikroskobu ile ortalama pürüzlülük (Ra), pürüzlülük profil değeri (Rq) ve pürüzlülük derinliği (Rt) tahmin edilerek mine yüzeyi değerlendirildi. Kalan beş küçük azı dişinde taramalı elektron mikroskobu ile Mine Hasar Endeksi (EDI) değerlendirildi.

Bulgular: Tüm değerlendirilen parametrelerde - Ra (p<0.0001), Rq (p<0.0001) ve Rt (p<0.0001) - önemli farklılıklar gözlemlendi. GFCB, tüm parametrelerde en pürüzsüz yüzeyi sergiledi. En düşük EDI, GFCB ile tedavi edilen dişlerde gözlemlendi, ancak farklar önemli değildi. GFCB ile çalışmak en uzun süreyi aldı (ortalama 116s) ve en kısa süre CBCB ile çalışıldı (ortalama 49s).

Sonuç: CB kullanımı en hızlı temizleme yöntemi olsa da, mine yüzey pürüzlülüğü en yüksekti. CBCB alet seti ile temizleme, kalan mine pürüzlülüğünde tatmin edici sonuçlarla hızlı bir yöntem olduğunu kanıtladı.

Keywords

mine pürüzlülüğü, temizleme yöntemi, ortodonti, yapıştırıcı, diş yüzey

References

• 1. Bollenl CML, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: A review of the literature. Dent Mater 1997;13:258-69. google scholar
• 2. Zachrisson BU, Arthun J. Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques. Am J Orthod 1979;75:121-37. google scholar
• 3. Campbell PM. Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod 1995;65:103-10. google scholar
• 4. Retief DH, Denys FR. Finishing of enamel surfaces after debonding of orthodontic attachments. Angle Orthod 1979;49:1-10. google scholar
• 5. Hosein I, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Enamel loss during bonding, debonding, and cleanup with use of a self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:717-24. google scholar
• 6. Ahrari F, Akbari M, Akbari J, Dabiri G. Enamel surface roughness after debonding of orthodontic brackets and various clean-up techniques. J Dent Tehran Iran 2013;10:82-93. google scholar
• 7. Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Szatkiewicz T, Tomkowski R, Tandecka K, Grocholewicz K. Effect of orthodontic debonding and adhesive removal on the enamel - current knowledge and future perspectives - a systematic review. Med Sci Monit Int Med J Exp Clin Res 2014;20:1991-2001. google scholar
• 8. Karan S, Kircelli BH, Tasdelen B. Enamel surface roughness after debonding: Comparison of two different burs. Angle Orthod 2010;80:1081-8. google scholar
• 9. Mohebi S, Ameli N, Farshadfar P. Comparison of Enamel Surface Roughness after Bracket Debonding and Resin Removal Using Three Different Methods. IJO 2018;29:521-7. google scholar
• 10. Shah P, Sharma P, Goje SK, Kanzariya N, Parikh M. Comparative evaluation of enamel surface roughness after debonding using four finishing and polishing systems for residual resin removal—an in vitro study. Prog Orthod 2019;20:18. google scholar
• 11. Brosh T, Kaufman A, Balabanovsky A, Vardimon AD. In vivo debonding strength and enamel damage in two orthodontic debonding methods. J Biomech 2005;38:1107-13. google scholar
• 12. Zarrinnia K, Eid NM, Kehoe MJ. The effect of different debonding techniques on the enamel surface: an in vitro qualitative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:284-93. google scholar
• 13. Fan X-C, Chen L, Huang X-F. Effects of various debonding and adhesive clearance methods on enamel surface: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2017;17:58. google scholar
• 14. Webb BJ, Koch J, Hagan JL, Ballard RW, Armbruster PC. Enamel Surface Roughness of Preferred Debonding and Polishing Protocols. J Orthod 2016;43:39-46. google scholar
• 15. Rouleau BD, Marshall GW, Cooley RO. Enamel surface evaluations after clinical treatment and removal of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod 1982;81:423-6. google scholar
• 16. Schuler FS, van Waes H. SEM-evaluation of enamel surfaces after removal of fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Dent 2003;16:390-4. google scholar
• 17. Kitahara-Ceia FMF, Mucha JN, dos Santos PAM. Assessment of enamel damage after removal of ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:548-55. google scholar
• 18. Gwinnett AJ, Gorelick L. Microscopic evaluation of enamel after debonding: clinical application. Am J Orthod 1977;71:651-65. google scholar
• 19. Zaher AR, Abdalla EM, Abdel Motie MA, Rehman NA, Kassem H, Athanasiou AE. Enamel colour changes after debonding using various bonding systems. J Orthod 2012;39:82-8. google scholar
• 20. Bonetti G, Zanarini M, Incerti Parenti S, Lattuca M, Marchionni S, Gatto MR. Evaluation of enamel surfaces after bracket debonding: An in-vivo study with scanning electron microscopy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:696-702. google scholar
• 21. Dumbryte I, Jonavicius T, Linkeviciene L, Linkevicius T, Peciuliene V, Malinauskas M. Enamel cracks evaluation - A method to predict tooth surface damage during the debonding. Dent Mater J 2015;34:828-34. google scholar
• 22. Radlanski RJ. A New Carbide Finishing Bur for Bracket Debonding. J Orofac Orthop 2001;4:9. google scholar
• 23. Park SB, Kim GH, Ha MH. A comparison study of the effects of handpeice speed on teeth in debonding procedure. Korean J Orthod 2004;34:83-91. google scholar
• 24. Garg R, Dixit P, Khosla T, Gupta P, Kalra H, Kumar P. Enamel Surface Roughness after Debonding: A Comparative Study using Three Different Burs. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018;19:521-6. google scholar
• 25. Shafiee HA, Mohebi S, Ameli N, Omidvar R, Akbarzadeh A. Enamel Surface Roughness after Orthodontic Bracket Debonding and Composite Resin Removal by Two Types of Burs. J Dent Sch 2015;33:210-219. google scholar
• 26. Sugsompian K, Tansalarak R, Piyapattamin T. Comparison of the Enamel Surface Roughness from Different Polishing Methods: Scanning Electron Microscopy and Atomic Force Microscopy Investigation. Eur J Dent 2020;14:299-305. google scholar
• 27. Çelebi F. Mechanical Vibration and Chewing Gum Methods in Orthodontic Pain Relief. Turk J Orthod 2022;35:133-8. google scholar
• 28. Vujkov S, Cveticanin L. Effect of mass variation on vibration properties of the tooth in drilling operation. Sci Rep 2022;12:1691. google scholar
• 29. Nakada N, Uchida Y, Inaba M, Kaetsu R, Shimizu N, Namura Y, Motoyoshi M. Pain and removal force associated with bracket debonding: a clinical study. J Appl Oral Sci 2021;29:e20200879. google scholar
• 30. Bavbek NC, Tuncer BB, Tortop T, Celik B. Efficacy of different methods to reduce pain during debonding of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod 2016;86:917-24. google scholar
• 31. Pines MS, Schulman A. Characterization of wear of tungsten carbide burs. J Am Dent Assoc 1939 1979;99:831-3. google scholar